Though each build came in at or under budget when all of the parts were ordered, adjusted prices measured a week before the series went live were used to calculate a more recent performance-per-dollar chart.
The cheapest PC remains on top, as usual, since performance never scales in perfect proportion to complexity (and thus, price).
The real surprise is where the $2400 PC mixes things up with the $1200 PC, providing roughly equal value, even in the face of its diminishing returns. The $1200 PC’s performance-per-dollar should fall between that of the two other two builds unless it has a serious flaw.
Even high-end gaming scores that should have highlighted its Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire are unable to save the $1200 system. The $600 PC simply can't compete at this level, though a 2560x1600 value comparison to the $1200 build could have at least been entertaining.
In the end, we have a $600 PC that vastly outperformed expectations, a $1200 PC that we’ve written off as horribly imbalanced, and a $2400 that costs too much (though it didn't bust past our budget). Most of us would prefer the $2400 PC, but still put that $600 build to good use during this economically wily holiday season.
- Wait, Bigger Isn’t Always Better?
- Test Settings
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Benchmark Results: Crysis
- Benchmark Results: F1 2010
- Benchmark Results: Just Cause 2
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power And Heat
- Average Performance And Efficiency
- Which One Of These Builds Is For You?